According to you, which of these countries are threatening World's Peace ?

[Andrewz]

The poll has actually already been made by the European Survey in the EU and by the ADL in the US. Here's a direct link to the poll.

Now, what the Civfanatics communauty thinks about it ?

Results of the poll for the EU and the US :

 

[andrewgprv]

I voted for North Korea, Israel, and the USA

 

[Hitro]

The ADL? A truly impartial organization...

Depends on what "World Peace" is. Is it the absence of war in the world? Is it a state of stable peace between the large powers? The prevention of a world-destroying nuclear war?

In the first case a whole lot of those countries would apply (I voted accordingly). The second would already decrese the number. The third should only include some nuclear powers.

 

[Constantine]

Why isn't Canada there?

 

[Riesstiu IV]

India is pretty low on the list.

Originally posted by Constantine
Why isn't Canada there?

Can-a-what? where's that?

 

[Enemy Ace]

Afghanistan - No. Cannot threaten street gangs in NYC.

China - Yes. Specifically threatened Taiwan.

European Union - No. As a whole, no.

France - Yes. They are appeasers. They embolden threatening regimes.

Germany - Yes. They are appeasers. They embolden threatening regimes with their inaction.

India - Yes. The conflict over Kashmir could erupt into nuclear war.

Iran - Yes. They sponsor terrorism and it remains to be seen what is going on with their nuclear program.

Iraq - No. They can't threaten an ant hill.

Israel - No. They are defending themselves.

Libya - Yes. They sponsor terrorism.

North Korea - Yes. They sell nuclear and missile technology to rogue nations and threaten nuclear war, constantly.

Pakistan - Yes. The conflict over Kashmir could erupt into nuclear war.

Russia - Yes. They arm rogue nations and appease them.

Saudia Arabia - Yes. Lots of terror sponsorship that they are unwilling to stop.

Somalia - Are you kidding? Only threatening to themselves.

Syria - Unknown. They seem to be cooperating more and more.

United Kingdom - No. They only threaten the extreme left's agenda.

United States - No. They only threaten the extreme left's agenda.

 

[Riesstiu IV]

Your saying Germany and France threaten world peace but the United States does not?

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

Basically I agree with Enemy Ace, except that the UK and US are big threats to world peace as well. We arm half the world to fight against the other half... not that Europe doesn't do this as well. France and Germany [and Russia] are dangerous to world peace not only through inaction and "appeasement", but through their arms sales and advanced weapon tech trading, which [almost] rivals that of the USA and UK.

 

[Enemy Ace]

Yes, I am.

The U.S. has protected world peace with its military for more than 60 years, most recently by removing a man who was in the process of developing nuclear weapons, or thought he was.

The U.S. has also removed the Taliban and Al-Qaida from Afghanistan and that country ceases to be the breeding ground for terrorism, that it once was.

The U.S. has also commenced operations throughout the world, with the aid of some partner nations, to fight terrorism and defend those areas against threats. To be fair, Germany has helped us in Afghanistan, and it is much appreciated. However, that is small beans on the grand scale.

France refuses to do anything about world threats. They have made it quite clear that they will not stand with us against terrorism and the several rogue nations.

Although the U.S. has been involved in some transactions, in the past, that proved not to be smart, we have taken responsibility for those actions and consequently corrected them.

 

[Perfection]

China - Yes Taiwan Debacle

European Union - Perhaps an economic war with the U.S. could stir things up

France - Perhaps, may act know when action is neccesary

Germany - Yes, may act know when action is neccesary

India - Yes. Pakistani conflict could get ugly, but that's pretty remote

Iran - Yes, Terrorism

Iraq - Yes, International arguement could destabalize things

Israel - Yes, apparent hostile from some muslim points of view

Libya - Yes. terrorism

North Korea - Yes, pyscho leader nuclear capabalities, yikes!

Pakistan - Yes. Indian conflict could get ugly, but that's pretty remote.

Russia - Not really, weak economy and little sponsership of world-destabalizing terrorist cells

Saudia Arabia - Government in shambles and corrupt, much anti-Americanism.

Somalia - To busy fighting amongst themselves

Syria - Yes anti-isreali

United Kingdom - yes, could spark trade war.

United States - World superpower, one blunder could cause chaos

 

[Enemy Ace]

Originally posted by Pontiuth Pilate
Basically I agree with Enemy Ace, except that the UK and US are big threats to world peace as well. We arm half the world to fight against the other half... not that Europe doesn't do this as well. France and Germany [and Russia] are dangerous to world peace not only through inaction and "appeasement", but through their arms sales and advanced weapon tech trading, which [almost] rivals that of the USA and UK.

I do not see half the world fighting the other half.

We armed Saddam Hussien against Iran (which at the time seemed like a very good idea. We also armed Iran somewhat). France gave them a nuclear reactor.

We armed the Afghanis to fight the Soviet Union, which was certainly the right thing to do, though later some of those arms were used against us.

We armed S. Vietnam to fight N. Vietnam, which was certainly a good idea.

We armed S. Korea to fight N. Korea, which is certainly a good idea.

We arm Japan to defend against a possible attack by N. Korea, which is certainly a good idea.

We arm Taiwan to defend against a possible attack by China, which is certainly a good idea.

I fail to see where the U.S. is wrong, here. We armed one bad guy, and we didn't know just how bad a guy he was, at the time.

 

[Riesstiu IV]

Perhaps if we stoped "arming people", it wouldn't come back to bite us in the ass every few years.

 

[Pontiuth Pilate]

It's not government funding, it's private companies that we allow to sell billions of dollars worth of arms to third-rate states in Africa, Asia, etc.

 

[Enemy Ace]

If we had not armed Iraq and Afghanistan, we would still have fought them.

 

[delsully]

Well, the US gave that "one bad guy" chemical agents that they knew he would promptly use on Iran. Then he used them on the Kurds. The question isn't about who's right or wrong, it's about a threat to peace. Invading Iraq didn't win the US international fame. Hence, some people might consider US actions escalating war/terror/ and threatening world peace.

 

[Enemy Ace]

Well, they are wrong.

I thought we were speaking of today. What happened ten years ago should not even matter. It was a different time and a different administration. If you want to go to history, then every nation has, at one time, done something to threaten world peace. Where is the cut off point? Do you want to go back in time as far as it will suit your own viewpoints or what?

TODAY, the U.S. is not a threat to world peace, nor do I believe it ever really has been.

 

[Sarevok]

Iran, North Korea and the EU

 

[Enemy Ace]

I think some boundary has to be drawn. What can be defined as a threat to world peace?

 

[delsully]

Dude, you brought it up in your post, I just elaborated.

 

[Enemy Ace]

Sure, but you are designating America as a threat to peace based on events that happened fifteen years ago. Also, I was responding, myself, to someone else's post about the subject. There is no nation that we are arming, at this time, to attack another.